We are living in uncertain and quickly changing times. Most recently, on January 27, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) that suspends entry into the United States for 90 days of certain aliens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. For more information about the EO and its immigration and mobility
discrimination
Are Employers Responsible for Protecting Their Employees on Social Media? “Yes” According to a Recent Decision
Does the workplace extend into cyberspace? In a precedent setting decision with potentially far-reaching implications, a labour arbitrator has found an employer liable for failing to protect its workers from harassment and discrimination in customer posts on the employer’s Twitter account (Toronto Transit Commission and ATU, Local 113, 2016 CarswellOnt 10550). Employers using social media to communicate with clients, customers or the general public may need to rethink how to they respond to uncivil, abusive or threatening online posts targeting their workers.
Continue Reading Are Employers Responsible for Protecting Their Employees on Social Media? “Yes” According to a Recent Decision
More Reinstatements on the Horizon in Discrimination Cases?

In the recent decision of Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board v. Fair, 2016 ONCA 421, the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) upheld the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s 2013 decision to reinstate an employee, more than 10 years after her employment was terminated. By the time of the ONCA’s decision, almost 15 years had passed since the original termination.
The ONCA’s decision may encourage other decision-makers to order reinstatement as a remedy in discrimination cases. The decision also highlights the importance of considering all possible positions, vacant or not, in order to meet the duty to accommodate employees with disabilities.Continue Reading More Reinstatements on the Horizon in Discrimination Cases?
Family Status Discrimination: HRTO Narrows “Self-Accommodation” Requirement

A recent decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “HRTO”) has further defined the scope of the test for “family status” discrimination. Employees may not be required to take measures to find alternative arrangements for infrequent, sporadic or unexpected family needs, before seeking protection under the Human Rights Code (the “Code”).
Continue Reading Family Status Discrimination: HRTO Narrows “Self-Accommodation” Requirement
“Unfriend Me”: Social Media, Discipline and Discharge
It is no secret that social media platforms are changing the way we communicate, the way we inform ourselves, and the way we do business. In fact, the growth of these platforms has been nothing short of phenomenal.
However, social media has also created new challenges for employers. To assist you with these new challenges, we draw your attention to two recent cases.
Continue Reading “Unfriend Me”: Social Media, Discipline and Discharge
Successful Dismissal of a Human Rights Application in the Academic Context by Baker & McKenzie

A team of Baker & McKenzie lawyers successfully argued for the summary dismissal of a human rights application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. The applicant in this case alleged discrimination on the basis of disability under s. 11 of the Ontario Human Rights Code (“Code”).
Continue Reading Successful Dismissal of a Human Rights Application in the Academic Context by Baker & McKenzie